For nearly two decades, CBS Evening News anchorman Walter Cronkite signed off his broadcasts with five simple words: “That’s the way it is.” The statement expressed what he believed should be journalists’ guiding principle, which is to report the facts “without regard for the consequences or controversy that may ensue.”

Much has changed since the iconic newsman gave up his desk, but often, the truth still shines through and shows its enduring power to effect change. That’s the message of Spotlight, the new film starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, and Rachel McAdams about the team of Boston Globe reporters who broke the Catholic Church’s sex-abuse scandal through a series of stories beginning in January 2002.

Although Fox News Channel may be the favorite whipping boy of liberals, the best data indicates that the outlet is neither the most opinionated nor the most biased. But that doesn’t mean that America’s most popular cable news network doesn’t have credibility issues. It does.

If you want to find one of the greatest threats to Fox’s credibility, walk past Sean Hannity’s carefully powdered forehead and Megyn Kelly’s impeccably curled hair, and go deep inside NewsCorps’ Manhattan headquarters. There you’ll find Todd Starnes, a middle-aged man sitting at a difficult-to-find desk who hosts a radio podcast and web-only video show and occasionally pens opinion columns for FoxNews.com. He might appear unassuming, if vaguely familiar, but he is more influential and destructive than even Fox’s network executives may realize.

Fox News has a Todd Starnes problem. And while the network doesn’t seem to be concerned, perhaps it should be. Because Starnes has both a rapidly expanding platform and a long history of journalistic malfeasance.

Nothing says, “I have no idea what I’m talking about” like a pastor, blogger, or social media troll complaining about “journalistic integrity.” Those who use this phrase are typically not saying anything about journalism; they just don’t like what the writer has to say. How do I know this? Because I’ve met more than my share of them and, when pressed, they cannot even define the word “journalism.”

Upon receiving this criticism, I usually respond with twin questions:

How do you define “journalism?”

What are the standards of “journalism” that you think are required for it to have integrity?

With rare exception, the critic has no answer—not even a bad one—to either question. Instead of doing the hard work of defining terms they seek to use, the individual has mindlessly commondeered a phrase that they’ve heard someone somewhere (probably on a cable news network) use and invoked it to hopefully cast doubt on the writer’s credibility.

A person shouldn’t use words they don’t understand. That seems like a intuitive life principle–like “eat when you’re hungry”–but I’m astounded by how many people ignore it. So here’s a little post to help clear a few things about these matters up.

One of the most helpful things to remember is that journalism is not monolithic. Most people conflate “journalism” with “reporting.” This is a grave mistake because though reporting is journalism, journalism is more than reporting. Most journalists generally fall into one of two broad categories: reporters and commentators. That’s why if you pick up a newspaper—as fewer and fewer people are doing—it will essentially be split into a “news” section(s) and an “opinion” section. These sections are run under two different desks with two separate sets of standards. What is happening in these sections are not the same because reporting is not commentary and vice versa.

In news writing, where information is reported, for example, there should be a balance of perspectives offered by sources other than the writer. Typically, at least three sources representing a range of perspectives on the topic are quoted. The author’s bias should be minimized as much as possible (I don’t believe bias can ever be completely eliminated). They should cover news, in the words of Adolph Ochs, “without fear or favor.”

Join Jonathan at his next Writer’s Boot Camp. Sign-up NOW!

In opinion writing, the writer is commenting on news, rather than reporting on it. The opinion writer is paid to have an opinion and maintains no illusion of being unbiased. Therefore, the best opinion writing should assert a strong point of view. And a commentator is not obligated to interview sources—though often he or she can if they deem it to be helpful—because the writer is merely offering an opinion on what is already known.

For reporters to maintain journalistic integrity, they should produce work that is honest, accurate, fair, and as balanced as is possible. For commentators to maintain journalistic integrity, they should produce work that is honest, accurate, and appropriately pointed. Opinion writers are not required to present an opposing view to their own unless they deem it helpful to them to their readers. A reporter’s article should an accurate snapshot of what is happening in the world while a commentator’s article should tell you what he or she thinks you should make of that snapshot.

Learning to distinguish between these two broad categories is important. Last week, I wrote an opinion article at Religion News Service that cited a particular blog’s views on a topic. One of the website’s bloggers wrote me upset that I didn’t contact him for an interview to get the latest iteration of their opinion on the matter. But RNS readers don’t know this person or care that much about what this person has to say. The person played the journalistic integrity card, but he was really shouting, “I have no idea what I’m talking about.” He had conflated news with opinion.

You’ll also witness this misunderstanding when liberals complain about Fox News having the most “biased reporting on television.” Ask them who they are referring to and they’ll mention Sean Hannity, Meghan Kelly or Bill O’Reilly. Are those three hosts biased? Yes. Are they reporters? No. They are commentators. So if you know they have strong opinions of a particular type, it means they are actually doing their jobs.

Of course, the lines are often blurry. In addition to these broad categories, there is also feature writing, blogging, analysis and other kinds of writing that may blend reporting and commentary in a way that makes evaluating the “journalistic integrity” difficult. These lines have grown blurrier in the digital age where websites have developed sections and sub-sections with headings that do not make clear whether you are reading opinion commentary or reported news. Many reporters now have blogs on their publication’s website where they can assert their opinions freely.

More than 90 percent of what I write falls under opinion—either straight commentary or analysis. I do very little reporting because a) I don’t like it and b) I’m not that good at it. But when it comes to other writers and articles, here’s a tip: If you don’t know, ask. And always ask before you start yammering on about “journalistic integrity” and end up cleaning cream pie off your face.

Now this might all sound like sour journalistic grapes to you, and perhaps some of it is. If you deal with critics as much as I do, your grapes would start fermenting too. But more than that, it matters. Because many of my readers are also vocal Christians. As Augustine wrote in The Literal Meaning of Genesis:

If [a non-Christian] finds a Christian mistaken in a field, which they themselves know well, and hear him maintain his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?

In other words, if Christians go around talking out of their heads about journalism (or climate change or the fossil record or transgender issues or….), then people in those fields who actually have experience in and knowledge about them will dismiss Christians’ other seemingly incredible claims about other matters like, say, a God-man who was crucified and resurrected.

Brothers and sisters, you are not professional journalists. When you pretend to be, you destroy among yourselves the very thing you hope to preserve in those you criticize: credibility.

As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Twain might as well have been writing about Joe Carter, communications specialist for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. After I published a column on the recent Pew religious landscape study, which reported that evangelicals have declined as a share of the total population, Carter responded breathlessly on the ERLC website. He claimed I had “gone to great pains to deceive” myself and lied about the study’s findings because “the results do not fit with Merritt’s predetermined narrative.”

It’s admittedly pointed, if uncharitable, but Carter skipped one of the most important rules of opinion writing: always do your homework.

This is a rule I keep in the front of my mind when I’m analyzing statistics. I’m not a “numbers person.” Heck, I’ve never even balanced a checkbook. That’s why when I published my column on the Pew study, I spoke to a Pew researcher and three reputable outside sociologists. Before publishing it, three editors within Religion News Service reviewed and fact-checked it. But while I did the hard work of tracking down reputable sources and speaking to the organization that actually released the study, Joe spoke to exactly no one.

This isn’t the first time a research failure has created an issue for Carter. In March of last year, he made comments stating that Jesus only welcomed people seeking forgiveness and only partied with “sinners…[that] were already followers.” It sounded so bizarre that I decided to do my homework and speak to a handful of leading New Testament scholars. Alas, I could find no one to support his assertions.

After reading Carter’s analysis of the Pew data, I had a similar feeling. Are evangelicals declining as I asserted or stable as Joe said? Was I moving “the goalpost in order to save [my] preconceptions” as he claimed? Was mainline Protestantism’s decline a result of their liberalism as Joe said or did birthrates play a significant role as my article claimed? Were there really “more evangelicals in America today than at any time in our nation’s history” as Carter stated?

Taking time to do my research proved so effective in the past, so I decided to follow the same path this time around. I did what Carter refused to do: I (again) spoke to an actual Pew research associate, Jessica Martinez.

Pastor Danny Cortez of New Heart Community Church in La Mirada, California created a media frenzy when he announced that he no longer believes homosexual behavior is sinful. The decision came on the heels of Cortez’s son’s announcement that he was gay. The church decided not to remove Cortez from leadership even though it is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), a denomination that condemns homosexual behavior.

Sources within the SBC say they do not expect the denomination to respond to, reprimand, or remove New Heart from fellowship during their annual meeting in Baltimore, Maryland this week.

Fermin Whittaker, Executive Director of the California Southern Baptist Convention, told me that media outlets haven’t accurately reported all the facts on the matter. New Heart is a Pilipino church, not a Spanish one. They are not actively involved in the SBC and, according to Whittaker, have only given $80 per month to the denomination’s Cooperative Program. But more significantly, he does not consider it a traditional congregation.

“This is a mission church, we think,” Whittaker said. “It is not an organized congregation, and the parent church had no knowledge of the changes happening there.”

He says that Baptist polity does not allow him or the California arm of the SBC he leads to revoke a congregation’s membership. Unless the denomination acts at their national gathering this week, New Heart will remain a participating Southern Baptist congregation until at least next Summer.

In February of 2013, I realized my dream of having a regular column where I could cultivate important conversations at the intersection of faith and culture. I purposed at that time to probe difficult questions that others may be afraid to ask and to create quality content that would challenge readers to think deeply about their own journeys with God.

Over the last 13 months, 700,000 people have read and engaged with the content at “On Faith and Culture.” Together, we’ve explored contentious political issues, shifting public opinions, relevant current events, and prevailing scriptural interpretations. My intent was not to be a preacher, but a conversation starter. Rather than offer all the right answers, I wanted to help raise the right questions. Sometimes these columns cost me, but I hope I’ve done my job reasonably well.

I am overjoyed to announce that “On Faith and Culture” has won the Wilbur Award in its category for 2013 (as did two other colleagues at RNS). This is one of the highest awards for excellence in religion writing and is awarded by The Religion Communicators Council, which was founded in 1929. The RCC “presents Wilbur Awards to encourage and recognize the work of individuals as they communicate about religions issues, values and themes; with professionalism, fairness and honesty.” Other winners for this year include Mitch Albom, Charlie Rose, and Mark Burnett and Roma Downey for “The Bible” television series.

As my column enters its second year, I renew my commitment to you to provide consistent, quality content. I’m sure I’ll fail on occasion, but I hope to succeed more often.

If I live a hundred lifetimes, I could never say “thank you” enough to those of you who engage with my work and provide thoughtful feedback and critique. None of this would be possible without you.

In Acts 17, the Jews in Thessalonica grew jealous at the explosion of Christian converts among them. So–like religious people are often wont to do when they grow envious–they formed a mob and went on a witch hunt. Unfortunately, the biggest troublemakers, Paul and Silas, were nowhere to be found. So instead, they dragged Jason and some recent converts before the city authorities shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here, and Jason received them.”

This passage has always stuck with me. What does it mean for the Church of Jesus to “turn the world upside down?” Is that merely hyperbole or is it really possible?

This week, I won’t be posting any new columns because I’ll be investing these questions. I depart tomorrow to spend the next week in Malawi to see the good work being done by Tearfund in that country. They are working to mobilize local churches to change lives, restore communities, lift people out of poverty, and bring hope to people there. They believe the local church is unlike any other business or non-profit because of their “local knowledge, local relationships, and a life-changing capacity rooted in something deeper, stronger, and more powerful.”

Too often, I focus my gaze on the failings and foibles of the modern Christian church–from partisan political entanglements to fixations on the apocalypse, from waning cultural influence to the damaged perception of Christians among many. I’m excited to spend some time focused on some of the better things happening in and through the Church next week. I’ll be returning the week of May 13th. I look forward to reporting back to you then.

In Kathryn Joyce’s Mother Jones article published last week, she offered a series of stories that she believes prove evangelical Christians have “orphan fever.” That is to say, a contagious illness is infecting American churches that is harming children by placing orphans in abusive Christian homes so they can be proselytized.

In my response to her article, I did not deny that her stories and examples were truthful or accurately reported. From all I can tell, Joyce is a solid reporter who has gathered stories from various sources on the topic, and I look forward to reading a fuller treatment of the topic in her forthcoming book. But I did (and do) question whether or not the stories told in her article are representative of the large and diverse Christian community in America. One comment I made particularly rankled readers:

“And [Joyce] references a self-published book, To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl, two pastors I’ve never heard of.”

I received numerous emails, tweets, and comments after my response ran informing me that the Pearls were far more influential than I realized. After poking around, I noticed that the Pearls have received some fairly high level media coverage over the years, though of course, hearing about someone or something doesn’t equal influence. So I decided to do some more research.

One of the primary pieces of evidence cited for the Pearl’s influence is the book sales of their self-published work, To Train Up a Child. Joyce herself notes that it “has sold nearly 700,000 copies,” a figure cited in other places as well that seems to originally emanate from Wikipedia. This an impressive number when you first read it, but where does it come from?

As something of a student of the publishing industry, I know that a book’s sales numbers can be hard to track down. Since 2001, the industry has looked to Nielsen Bookscan, which records any books purchased through about 80% of America’s retail outlets and book stores. For example, books bought through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, the now-defunct Borders, all report to Bookscan. So what are the Bookscan numbers for To Train Up a Child? As of the end of last week, the lifetime sales reported were—drumroll please—9,579.

Granted, this number only represents sales since 2001, and the book was published in 1994. Additionally, Bookscan does not record Christian bookstore sales, which were presumably where many of these books were sold. Christian publishers say that in order to get a more accurate sales figure of their titles, you should double or even triple the number to estimate how many sold in both secular and Christian markets. If we take the more generous recommendation, that leaves us with an industry estimate of 28,737 total sales most retail outlets since 2001.

So where does this “nearly 700,000” figure come from? Did the Pearls sell approximately 650,000 books between 1994 and 2001, but only 28,737 between 2001 and 2013? No one knows, though it seems unlikely. Had the book been traditionally published, we could just call up the publisher and ask for a sales report. But in this case, the publisher is the Pearl’s “No Greater Joy Ministries.”

Even if nearly 700,000 units have been printed and released to the public—and there is no way to verify that with any level of accuracy—it still may not tell us what some think it does. I’ve spent enough time around Christian ministries to know how easy it is to inflate self-published book “sales.” For example, a ministry might raise money for a campaign where they purchase a random mailing list for Christians and send their founder’s book (which they may purchase for as little as $1.00) to each address. These books weren’t purchased or even requested, and there is no reason to believe that any of the thousands of books mailed were ever read. But they will show up as product sales in the ministry records.

While Joyce et al may trust the self-reported sales number, it is simply not reliable enough to construct an argument about their influence.

That led me to the second piece of evidence presented to me as an indication of the Pearl’s influence: ministry financial records. “No Greater Joy Ministries” takes in more than one million dollars annually. (It’s important to note that the last year on record that I can find is 2010-2011, in which the ministry ended up almost a quarter of a million dollars in the red).

Again, this number sounds pretty impressive at first. For those of us who earn an average wage, a million dollars a year sounds like lottery-level income. But in the world of evangelical Christian ministries, it’s not nearly as impressive.

For example, I looked at some of the ministries around where I live in metropolitan Atlanta, GA. Crown Financial Ministries, a financial stewardship ministry less than 10 miles from where I live, reports annual revenue of more than $23 million. Adventures in Missions in Gainesville, GA reports $15.4 million in annual revenue. Dr. Michael Youssef’s “Leading the Way” and Chip Ingram’s “Living on the Edge” report annual revenues of 13.5 million and 6.5 million, respectively. South of my home, MAP International in Brunswick, GA reports $140.4 million in annual revenue.

Or we might look at a truly influential evangelical, Charles Stanley, whose “InTouch Ministries” is headquartered not far from where I live. With approximately $90 million in annual revenue, InTouch collects the Pearl’s total annual receipts every four days, on average.

You may or may not have heard about any of these ministries or leaders—which don’t include some of the more notable ministry giants, such as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer—but they give you an idea of what evangelical Christian organizations look like from a financial standpoint. If the Pearl’s “No Greater Joy Ministries” were based outside of Atlanta, we can surmise they might be listed somewhere in the bottom quarter of evangelical ministries in the metropolitan area of our city alone.

This information is even less helpful when you consider that we don’t know the breakdown of their funding sources. If one donor gave a one million dollar gift, for example, it means something altogether different than if one million donors gave a one dollar check. Their annual revenue is unhelpful at best, and at worst, undermines the arguments it is being used to make.

This says nothing of the social media reach of “No Greater Joy Ministries” (14,168 Facebook “likes” and 524 Twitter “followers”), which can easily be compared to other evangelical leaders and ministries. And it doesn’t explore the type of crowds they draw at their events. Their “Big Texas Shindig” event, for example, shows 109 people registered through Facebook for the October 2012 event. That’s less than the attendance of some Sunday School classes at many evangelical mega-churches.

What does all of this tell us? It says that while the Pearls may have some amount of influence, it is disproportionate to the amount of space many writers have given them in articles, and it says that pretending that they or their book or their ministry are influential among evangelicals on any large scale is, frankly, disingenuous.

If you take all Christians in America and chop off Catholics, and then you take all Protestants and chop off mainline Protestants, and then you take all evangelicals and cut off progressives, and then you take all conservative evangelicals and chop off egalitarians, you’ll be left with a cohort of conservative complementation evangelicals. Within this faction, as best as I can tell, there is a small group of people who are influenced to any degree by the Pearl’s teachings. Their impact is particularly felt among the small but vocal Christian homeschooling community.

Do they have some influence? Yes.

Are they as influential as some believe? No.

Can we assume that their beliefs and views represent a sizable faction of the larger American Christian community? No.

But that leaves us with a more important question. Even though the Pearls are not as influential as some contend, there are some who have taken the Pearl’s teaching very seriously. So just how harmful are the Pearls and their teachings?

The answer to this question, in my estimation, is very harmful.

The Pearl’s teachings are harmful to women. Their teachings about how to be a Biblical woman and Biblical wife are regressive and oppressive, devoid of the love, compassion, and mutual respect the Bible commends in marriage. But worse, their teachings are harmful to children. In fact, harmful isn’t a strong enough word. They are flat-out dangerous.

The Tennessee couple advocates using “switches” to spank children as young as six months old. They encourage parents to use belts or even plumbing tubes to beat children into submission. Their teachings have been linked to the physical abuse of many children and multiple deaths, including one seven-year-old who was beaten to death by her parents with plastic tubing for apparently mispronouncing a word.

This kind of behavior is deplorable. It is vile. And I’m embarrassed that any who bear the name of Jesus Christ have put a single dollar into their bank accounts. People like the Pearls give others who follow Jesus a bad name.

In the end, I’m grateful to have been urged by readers to investigate this couple and their beliefs. My research tells me that though their impact may be smaller than some presume, the depravity of their teachings far exceeds their influence. The Pearls do not represent the vast majority of Jesus-followers in America, and Christians everywhere should prove it by repudiating their teachings.